Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 30 Apr 1999 03:59:10 +0200 (CEST) | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: 2.2.6_andrea2.bz2 |
| |
On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>Once you have something like Oracle or an LDAP server serving out >multi-megabyte data files, the equivalent btree is going to get awefully >deep awefully quickly, and there's no simple way to expand the width of >the tree dynamically to minimise that cost.
I have to agree with you ;). You are right and I was just worried about that. Ok, I think I wasted time implemented rb-trees. At least it's been fun.
>In other words, I can throw memory at hashing to make it faster, but >trees have a fixed cost which necessarily grows with their size.
Agreed. Probably in normal usage rb-trees may scale better also because most of files are not huge in size. But the performance drop that will increase with the file size is bad and I agree that it's better to have a clean design that can scale with minor changes under all scenarios.
I think tomorrow I'll drop RB-trees from here too.
If somebody think that it can make sense to have a rb-tree patch updated with my latest changes, ask me and I'll produce it while removing rbtrees from here (sigh!)...
Andrea Arcangeli
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |